Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
December 28, 2011

Why Ron Paul Should Win Primaries

Obama is a centrist Republican says Glenn Greenwald in today's Guardian. That's about right. As the Republican candidates try to be more to the right than Obama already is the policy discussion in the United States moved further to the rightwing fringe.

The Overton window, the frame of political acceptable ideas, is now more militaristic, more anti-social and less liberal than it has been for decades. As Obama has unfortunately no primary competition the only bit of hope for change in general U.S. policies comes with the one anti-war candidate in the whole field.

Ron Paul's libertarian ideas on social issues and financial matters are, in my view, quite nutty. Even more so than the positions of some of his fellow candidates. But his position on war and foreign affairs seem very reasonable to me. If he can get a higher profile by winning primaries his ideas will become more public and acceptable. The Overton window will widen and that again may induce more people to work against the established militaristic trend.

Justin Raimondo predicts that Ron Paul victories in some primaries will not change the predictable end-result in this election cycle. Obama will win:

In the end, a coalition of neocons and Romneyites will issue an encyclical, excommunicating Paul and his supporters from the Republican party – and opening the way for a third party bid that will threaten to put the GOP nominee in third in November.

That may well be the case. I would consider it a great success though because that process will turn discussions about war into something different than today's wholesale acclamations on both sides of the aisle to follow Netanyahu's calls to bomb Iran.

That should be reason enough for any progressive to vote for Ron Paul wherever possible.

Posted by b on December 28, 2011 at 13:54 UTC | Permalink

next page »

"Ron Paul's libertarian ideas on social issues and financial matters are, in my view, quite nutty"

If his supporters are saying this I wonder whether there is much hope.

Personally I rather like his policies, across the board!

Posted by: maff | Dec 28 2011 14:10 utc | 1

"I would consider it a great success....yadayadayada...."

Not mentioned by b is Paul's recognition and open defiance against our legislative inertia towards tyranny and a police state. He is one of the few sounding the klaxon about the theft of our civil liberties by these megolamaniacal criminal pieces of shit, Obama being just one of many. I disagree that Obama retaining office is any sort of people's victory to be realized by Ron Paul's efforts. Obama is just a continuation of Bush. He differs very little, if at all, from what we can expect of Romney. He's a fraud, a frontman for the status quo.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 28 2011 14:17 utc | 2

As a child, I attended elementary school in the suburbs of Los Angeles. I can remember, prior to the formation of the EPA, not being able to see across my school's playground because of the thick smog. That same area, today, has tolerable levels, and no day is as horrendous as those days in the late fifties and through the sixties. Just imagine, had the government not of stepped in, what the air would be like, across our nation, half a century later.

That is a DIRECT result of NECESSARY government regulation, reining in a corporate community that has NO REGARD for anything other than profits. Ron Paul's demonization of the EPA is ABSURD.

However, I'll take smog over a nuclear winter. And these fucking pieces of SHIT in Washington DC are rushing headlong towards the abyss. Ron Paul sees it, and doesn't wanna go there. He gets my vote.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 28 2011 14:45 utc | 3

" He's a fraud, a frontman for the status quo."

Yep, no doubt Obama is a front-man for the status-quo. The elites who back and vetted him, will be quite happy with his re-election. The moderates in the Republican party( Gary Johnson, Buddy Roemer) are the folks you never hear from. They have both been excluded for a reason. The powers that be know Obama could be challenged at the pols by these moderate candidates, and they'll have none of it. Buddy Roemer takes no pac money, and is right there with Ron Paul with regards to foreign policy. Tax and trade policy changes are high on his agenda, both badly needed, but, are taboos in the day to day discussions in the media. Until ALL candidates are included in the Republican "debates", I'll continue to believe Obama has already been re-appointed by the 1%ers.

Posted by: ben | Dec 28 2011 15:00 utc | 4

POA @ 3: If I had to vote Republican, as it stands right now, Yep, I'd vote for Ron Paul also. That's assuming our votes, since the dawning of e-voting, even count.

Posted by: ben | Dec 28 2011 15:06 utc | 5

Voters who like Paul's foreign policy but not his domestic policy ideas should realize that, while it's not in the constitution, a U.S. president enjoys much more latitude in implementing foreign policy than he does in domestic policy, where there are many more checks and balances. That's just the way it is. Anyhow, it won't get that far as b indicates, unfortunately.

Personally, I don't intend to vote, again, just as I and 38% of the electorate chose in the least presidential. It only encourages them.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 28 2011 15:10 utc | 6

Bottom line for me (if I was American) would be this:

Ron Paul will end the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" and respect the Bill of Rights. He would also try and fight the bankers in the Federal Reserve. Would be enough to get my vote, end of story.

Do I agree with him on any other issues? Not really, but when faced with a choice between moving back to Democracy or moving ahead with Empire people should overcome any partisan impulses and side against Empire. If not the whole Republic will be destroyed same as the Roman Empire or the Napolenic Empire before it.

Posted by: Colm O' Toole | Dec 28 2011 15:26 utc | 7

I've been a hardcore Ron Paul supporter since early 2007. I like nearly all his ideas. I do think the Federal reserve is a criminal banking cartel, as are other central banks. I do think civil liberties will soon be gone if he doesn't win. Of course his foreign policy ideas are wonderful and what attracted me to him in the first place. I do think there needs to be a social safety net, so that is one area of disagreement, but even Paul recognizes the need to protect medicare and social security.

Can he win? In a fair election he would win in a landslide. In the election that we will actually have? It's more tricky, but there are a lot more of us this time and we are watching them.

I'm glad to see b support him. Angry Arab seems to hate the man, and that was the last straw for me. I've always liked his blog and style, but he is starting to really piss me off.

To all US citizens reading this blog: Please consider registering to vote, as republicans if necessary, to vote for Paul in your state's caucus/primary. I understand and respect the arguments against legitimating the system. Normally I agree with them. But please. Just this once.

Posted by: Lysander | Dec 28 2011 15:27 utc | 8

For those Americans here who choose not to vote, please consider voting for the best third party candidates you can find. Until sizeable numbers are counted as not supporting the two legacy parties and their game of acting as two sides of the same coin, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party doesn't have a chance either.

Were they to see there is viability in running on two party lines (as is possible in some states) or even bailing on the Dems and running on a third party line that shows strength, then we might have some actual opposition to the current crop of national politicians.

And the odds of that happening...?

Posted by: jawbone | Dec 28 2011 15:39 utc | 9

"Ron Paul's libertarian ideas on social issues and financial matters are, in my view, quite nutty" I wish you were more specific. I might agree with your statement, I might argue it. I agree that the benefits of fiat currency and the 1930's reforms created the most stable economy the world has ever seen. On "social issues" you've painted with too broad a brush. I suspect we agree that a safety net is needed, (Hayek supported national healthcare) but, I see social issues like drugs and prostitution, even abortion as challenges of prohibition and thus not wise to actively prohibit. A feckless law against these things wouldn't bother me, it's the vast effort and resources that we dedicate to fight these inevitable problems.

I've voted for Ron Paul the last two presidential elections. Remember, it was Perot that gave us a balanced budget, it was the socialists who gave us social security--Ron Paul, even with a failed candidacy can challenge US imperialism, our drug war and some of the senseless bi-partisan policies that waste so much of our resources.

Posted by: scottindallas | Dec 28 2011 15:45 utc | 10

Of course the foreign policy alone should get people to register Republican so that their vote counts in the primaries, but almost equally important is preserving our civil liberties. There is no substantive difference between Gingrich, Romney, Perry or Obama when it comes to freedoms. They all promise to strip Americans of their rights.

Here is a new piece by Ron Paul on the NDAA:

Posted by: Aletho News | Dec 28 2011 16:01 utc | 11

In my opinion the only way to draw attention to bogus presidential "elections" is to refrain from voting. If the percentage voting in the presidential drops from 62% to less than 50% then the chances for electoral reform are significantly increased. So don't vote -- it only encourages them.

There are much better election schemes out there, with proportional scoring etc. Other countries do it, allowing people to vote for someone who nearly represents their views (think of it), but we have to go through this bogus "election" every four years, holding our noses and choosing from tweedledum and tweedledee, or our vote "doesn't count." I'm sick of it.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 28 2011 16:08 utc | 12

Ron Paul is simply an arch-conservative, possibly the last ‘public’ one alive. US history buffs will find models in the past.

Beyond that, he has always been consistent, appears and most likely is, genuine, honest. He has shown he is not out for glory or funding from lobbies to buy private planes...

He finds an spot in the ‘allowed’ opposition, as he is R and elected, is at the same time sneakily ignored, derided, deprived of media exposure. The corporate media playing cat and mouse. (note: he opposes the status quo, both D and R.)

End the Fed, stop the foreign adventures (anti-war), return to core values, a plentiful dashing of libertarian econo, stop the crazed TSA, etc. Paul presents a political stance that has a long standing history, is founded, grounded, in that he is way above all his R competitors, who come over as slicing-n-dicing and flip-flopping fools, a bunch of hollow fakes, with their weird vomiting TV ads, jawing on about gays, guns, freedom, Christianity, they take it for granted ppl are fools.

A pol who stands for sumpting!

Three cheers for Ron Paul!

Posted by: Noirette | Dec 28 2011 16:54 utc | 13

In Arkansas we have an open primary. So I will for the first time ever vote Republican, Ron Paul, in the primary. I will probably vote Green or Socialist in November. What I will not do is waste much time on the election scene this year. OWS or other participatory agitations are much more rewarding. Even in sit and spin mode... which is the only mode federal elections have.

Never imagined I would vote for a anti-choice person or the gold standard, but Paul is the only one I agree with on a few important issues (mentioned above).

I think the Democrats have played a very dangerous "Chicago" game by not allowing even ridiculous challengers in their primary. A lot of Dems should cross over and help the Republicans nominate Paul this year. But Dems are the largest group of snobby pearl-clutchers in the world.. so they will skip this opportunity. At least O and Bain must be banking on this heavily. I also think the GOP is playing hard fascist ball with election rigging/shenanigans now more than ever all around the country. While Dems, as always, say and do nothing.

Posted by: Eureka Springs | Dec 28 2011 17:19 utc | 14

Do you think Paul is in favor of having each candidate pay for their own Secret Service protection, rather then the government? I'd like to be a fly on the wall when he is pulled aside and they attempt to tell him how things really work.

But sure, why not? At least the debates will have some substance.

Posted by: Biklett | Dec 28 2011 18:45 utc | 15

It's all just Kabuki Theater at this point, and piss poor Kabuki, at that. Do you really think that someone who holds some of the views Ron Paul holds would actually be allowed to determine the destinies of some of the most powerful people the planet has ever witnessed? Seriously? Come on, this is insane. You're not going to elect your way out of this. There's only one way out, if you want out, aside from suicide. We all know what it is, and its likelihood is improbable as witnessed by people still believing they're somehow represented in elections.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Dec 28 2011 20:23 utc | 16

I'm with Don on this one. I'm not lending legitimacy to this charade. I hardly follow it anymore, except for occasional amusement. Some people never stop believing in Santa....they just replace him with their favorite candidate when they reach a certain age.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Dec 28 2011 20:43 utc | 17

Morocco Bama # 16,

No they wont allow Paul to win. But if he gathers enough support, they will have to expose themselves in order to stop him. It will make things much more clear for a lot more people. It will set the stage for the sort of things you are alluding to. That is the reason to support him. Even if you know the system will defend itself at any and all cost, then at least make it cost them something.

Posted by: Lysander | Dec 28 2011 21:34 utc | 18

Keep in mind that the global situation is changing. The US empire will come to an end, whether Paul is elected or not. Whether Fox news likes it or not. Ron Paul is really only offering a graceful exit rather than a collapse in a heap.

Posted by: Lysander | Dec 28 2011 21:38 utc | 19

I think b is right in terms of that Overton Window idea, which now is widening the allowed parameters of public discourse. What's good for the country is the airing of debate about the secret business of the FED; and also the way that the shadow economy both profits from criminal activity and funds the War on Drugs. It raises consciousness in the country, when we discuss the way in which the Bill of Rights has been neutered by the Patriot Act, and subsequent transfers of raw, as well as clandestine power, to the executive. Real mainstream debate clarifies what Chalmers Johnson called "blowback" and the "sorrows of empire" and the absurdity of any empire's ambition to rule the world.

The smear effort is on against Ron Paul now ; and republicans, for reasons that are obvious, want to diminish the range Paul's political megaphone, for the same reasons that democrats fought tooth and nail after 2000 to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot. Chris Hedges was writing stump speeches for Nader; and the ideas that really matter are the ones the two main parties want to suppress, and drown out, with the carnival barkers of mainstream US politics. The main strategy is that the carnival and circus of the absurd captures center stage.

If there is truly a political poisoned chalice it is Barack Obama, the most accomplished poser we have seen in US politics since Reagan;--and frankly much more sinister than Reagan. And Ron Paul is being painted as the nutty, laissez faire capitalist, and a racist too, who will deliver us to some kind of Mad Max version of the Gilded Age. He recently walked off stage from a CNN interview, where he could see Gloria Borger was about to ambush him on Israel. He is opposing foreign aid, foreign aid to any country; so this would cut off the military dole to the dubious right wing figures in that country. Next the pols will clobber him with that sacred cow, and say he is anti-Semitic or at least not best friends with the people we love best.

There is something surreal about the political class in the West, and this is not just an American phenomenon. OK, Ron Paul is something of a political poisoned chalice in his own right; but we can watch his crusade play out, pulling into his mainstream the last numbers of Americans who believe the electoral system can stop the bleeding, and most particularly can stop the wars.

Of course, as an American, disapproval of Congressman Paul can be considered as evidence of cynicism. But the only cynicism that can top that one, is approval given to President Obama, and the thought of him coasting into another term of office on the political downfall of the candidate Americans have decided is deranged. If people think Barak Obama represents a safe consensus figure; and is indeed a centrist republican; then he is a pretty sneaky one. If Americans think he is the safe choice, after an open debate that exposes many of the sorrows and crimes of the empire,--does that mean that Americans are all in, for empire? The boosters and rank and file pols have already chosen.

Posted by: Copeland | Dec 28 2011 23:25 utc | 20

Imagine for a moment armed Chinese Troops in Texas!

Any US presidential candidate who speaks out against US imperialism and fights for citizens to retain their constitutional rights deserves to be given a chance.

It seems surreal, I can't stand the GOP, and yet I find myself applauding and supporting Ron Paul, but from my observations, the man is genuine and the least beholden to special interests.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Dec 28 2011 23:47 utc | 21

@Don Bacon:

Yes, it is true that other countries have proportional representation systems. Countries like Germany, which is a vassal of the USA, and meekly sends troops to kill innocent people whenever the Elected Emperor commands. Which goes on bended to knee to ask if the Omni-Benevolent One will remove his nuclear weapons from their "sovereign territory" and when he say "No! Who the fuck do you think is in charge here?", never mentions it again.

Many other countries, that cooperate with the USA in doing great evil around the world, have such systems, too.

So, I think you will find that the limits to the evil a government does are not set by the form of electoral system it is elected under. They are set by (A) the power available to that government, and (B) the apathy of the people who elected it.

Of the two, the second is critical.

Posted by: ScuzzaMan | Dec 29 2011 0:21 utc | 22

I never mentioned evil. I said that I would not participate in a system where I must either vote for somebody who doesn't represent my views, which suggests something to them that isn't true, or I must waste my vote.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 29 2011 0:29 utc | 23

I'm telling everyone I can to vote for Paul in the primary as a way to keep open a discussion of Paul's stands on foreign policy and civil liberties. As a registered Democrat I plan to switch registration and vote for Paul in the primary. Quite simply, Democrats are allowing no choices this year.

Paul is the only way to keep a substantive debate on issues of war and peace and civil liberties alive. We need to keep him in it as long as possible.

As for the general election, I vehemently disagree with Bacon and Morocco Bama. NOT voting will be counted as a victory by those engaged in voter suppression.

Much better is to vote for a third party--any third party--to provide a measure of dissatisfaction with the ruling duopoly and of their illegitimacy.

When you look at Obama's record, it's hard to imagine that someone with his reprehensible decisions could even be considered the lesser of two evils.

We need to wean the Democratic base off the notion that they are voting strategically (lesser of two evils), when they consistently voting for someone who will betray them. The record provides compelling and substantial evidence that both Clinton and Obama acted directly against the interests of those who elected them, constantly appeasing Big Oil, Wall Street and the military.

I plan to write a commentary for local news papers outlining my reasoning as to why Obama should not be considered the lesser of two evils. I expect it will be published.

Instead of voting strategically, Democrats need to start voting their values. In the general election, that means third party--Justice, Green, or Socialist. If we could get those who energized Obama's victory to support a single third party, the results could be eye popping.

Posted by: JohnH | Dec 29 2011 0:57 utc | 24

Third parties? Their candidates don't get invited to the D/R debates, they aren't mentioned in the media except in derision, they can't get on the ballots in many states, their potential supporters get scared off by the Ds and Rs and so they can't raise money. No money, no tours, no advertising. The common feeling is that it's a "wasted vote." That means that people who even say they will vote third party end up voting D or R when they get into the booth and close the curtain because they don't want their votes to be "wasted."

The system is broken and needs shock treatment. Read Ralph Nader's book "Crashing the Party" for all the gory details. The man has been through it.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 29 2011 1:47 utc | 25

The American electoral process, now that privately-owned machines determine the winners and losers, is a shell game! You guyz talking about your votes and how they can be used to send a message to the Powers That Be have lost your minds!

American Votes aren't counted. Your votes are manipulated, ignored, trashed, altered...blah, blah, blah, blah...they are certainly not counted.

Your vote means NOTHING except what the Powers That Be want it to mean.

...But if you actually got together and agreed to have two people with dissimilar political viewpoints with a single click counter standing outside each voting station to ask people who they voted for and then counted up the votes yourselves.....well that might lead to something constructive...Eventually...

Hey! There’s an assignment for all those kids who like hanging out in parks humming “Kumbaya” or its modern equivalent while Banksters drive by giving them the bird. Let’s give them something PRODUCTIVE to do.

Ron Paul will never be elected. He's just another right wing side show freak in the pornographic and Satanic Freak Show "Amerika Votes" - just like Dennis Kucinich is on the "left" side of the aisle that you walk down after you lays down your electoral money, honey.

It's all an evil fraud designed by tricky dicksters, financed by vengeful sociopaths who hate you and believed in only by ignorant children and idiots.


Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 29 2011 2:01 utc | 26

@Bacon 25: "The common feeling is that [voting for a third party is] a "wasted vote." Exactly. And most Egyptians thought it was a waste of time to protest...until it wasn't.

What changes is that people like you and me become outspoken among our friends, giving them permission to rethink their positions, until they finally realize that voting for a Democrat is like shooting themselves in the foot. Then, they start to talk among their friends, who talk among their friends, and on and on. Finally, there will be an impact on elections, forcing politicians to take reluctant note that they have some accountability to the electorate.

Change, in totalitarian societies and "democracies" alike, starts with a precious few being outspoken, thereby giving permission to others to think about what was previously unthinkable.

Posted by: JohnH | Dec 29 2011 2:59 utc | 27

Ah, Egypt -- isn't that where the military council, on its U.S. leash, is still in control, violence continues, and the military has proclaimed that the Islamists who won the election will never exercise power? Don't occupy voting booths -- spread the word.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 29 2011 3:20 utc | 28


There was a recent fraudulent media stunt depicting Ron Paul as "walking out on an interview," however it seems that it was faked by editing.

These types of desperate attacks should further discredit the MSM and actually give Ron Paul a boost. Or at least one would hope so.

Posted by: Aletho News | Dec 29 2011 3:46 utc | 29

I've been catching hell at my local blog for using Ron Paul as a way to leverage certain topics into more prominent consideration. I'm probably going to vote for him, despite some serious misgivings.

Posted by: lizard | Dec 29 2011 3:50 utc | 30

For you Paulistas, he now leads in Iowa and he has picked up Bachmann's Campaign manager. Hugh Hewitt, conservative blogger, calls Paul "fringy." This is a guy (Hewitt) who has never met a war he didn't like -- from a distance, of course. So who's "fringy?"

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 29 2011 4:36 utc | 31

I wrote #26 a while ago.

I'm proud of it. I laid it out. Brutal. Truthful and bare. Then over the next almost two hours four people commented.

About drivel. Maybe it's a fast news night with a million stories competing for attention...and they all just got distracted from what's REALLY important about this election cycle!

I'm not familiar with the comments and thinking of AlethoNews and lizard but I am familiar with the commenting style of DonBacon and JohnH from my days as an irritant on the site controlled by that star-fucking sycophant of POWER, Steve Clemons.

They never shut up there either and hardly ever made a point worth deeply considering.

Nothing's changed.It's the sound of their own voice that entrances them.

Will this truthful post get me banned?

I earnestly hope not. There are too many voices I would miss who share their thoughts here.

Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 29 2011 4:45 utc | 32

Hang in there, Arthur. I get the impression here that people kinda don't know how to react to your or my style of table slamming. Truth is, I post because I enjoy the mental exercise, and enjoy the act of "framing" the content of my comment more than I do composing the actual opinion I seek to convey. Its art. I have no idea if I'm good at it, nor do I care. Its fun. What other excuse is needed?

I pretty much agree with you with you on the voting thing. (As you undoubtedly realize, by the ad nauseum amount of times I referred to Bev Harris' work when I was posting at Clemons' pseudo-progressive and unreal "realist" pit.) Anyone that has followed the whole black box voting thing has GOT to realize something is damned hinky about it. Trouble is, if no one votes, how do you demonstrate or realize the fraud? Its my hope that someone will roll down the pike that is so obviously the people's choice that it cannot be denied. THAT is when these fuckers and their black boxes will be caught with their pants down. But, trouble is, that will undoubtedly be when they demonstrate to us why they have been feverishly building a police state these last two decades.

So, yeah, I will probably vote. Just because they'd rather I didn't, because its just one more vote they have to fix, manipulate, or erase.

Fuck 'em.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 29 2011 5:05 utc | 33

Whether an American still thinks there is a point to voting is a subjective judgment; and people are not idiots just because they still think it's OK to vote. Apathy, cynicism, cowardice, are the most potent enemies of democracy.

arthurdecco takes a cheap shot at Kucinich, who is one of the few decent men we have left in public life.

Posted by: Copeland | Dec 29 2011 5:32 utc | 34

Kerry could have blown the lid off of the whole black box scam, but he chose to be a gentleman about it (like Gore in FL). Democrats love to appear like such reasonable men when being cheated out of their spoils! And then there's Harry Reid, who never could never seem to mount a filibuster as minority leader and could never face one down as majority leader.

Such Democratic shenanigans show just how rigged the system is, and how integral the Democratic leadership is to the charade. Eager appeasers like the Democratic leadership, including Pelosi, make Neville Chamberlain seem like a really decent fellow by comparison.

Posted by: JohnH | Dec 29 2011 5:49 utc | 35

I (among many others) went through this Overton Window anti-war thing with Howard Dean eight years ago. Dean was the one anti-war candidate, so from me (and others) came contributions (masterfully orchestrated by Joe Trippi) and hand-typed letters to Iowa caucus candidates. It seemed so possible at the time. But then in Iowa they hanged Dean with the "Dean Scream," a made-up killer for the Dean campaign. That was it.

So I can imagine that the PTB will want to play out a similar strategy on Paul. Make him "fringy" and outside the Overton Window of acceptability by decent folks.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 29 2011 6:15 utc | 36

"Paul is the only way to keep a substantive debate on issues of war and peace and civil liberties alive. We need to keep him in it as long as possible."

MB is right about our electoral Kabuki, but, I still have a shred of hope that by keeping Mr. Paul around and talking about the above issues, a certain amount of it will filter down to the "sheeple". I have little faith in our political system, but, I'll do what I can when I can. That means working within my own sphere of influence by talking to people, and contributing to people like Bernie Sanders, Thom Hartmann, Mike Malloy etc. It's all I can do, and besides, it's great therapy. And yes, I'll still vote, until the day I can't use a paper ballot.

Posted by: ben | Dec 29 2011 6:21 utc | 37

Thanks Aletho News for that link.
It's seems that Paul removed the microphone and disengaged gradually as Borger kept digging at the issue of the 20 year old newsletters. With the quick jab about Israel right at the end.

Cheating and stealing ballot boxes is nothing new in American history; but it is typically effective in close races because of how our Electoral College system works. I would say that the flurry of activity in Obama's Justice Department, to invalidate state laws designed to disenfranchise marginal voters (the very poor) is evidence that Team Obama thinks this is going to be a close election. Vote caging, voter challenges, letters of disinformation that get ill-informed voters disqualified as elections draw near, and voter ID laws that impact the very poor, are republican specialties. And the Obama folks at Justice are starting to clamp down on these practices, because it looks to them like the republicans will be using these methods wherever they can.

Posted by: Copeland | Dec 29 2011 6:24 utc | 38

arthurdecco takes a cheap shot at Kucinich, who is one of the few decent men we have left in public life.

yep copeland

Then over the next almost two hours four people commented.

just a little word to the newbies out there. one of the differences between us and you is when we read these threads we know who's been here for years and years and who hasn't. so i don't wonder about things like why no one responded to a comment. it certainly never occurs to me people kinda don't know how to react to your style, because silence is a reaction.

for anyone wishing to explore the kinds of 'reactions' we are very much accustomed to, i highly recommend the archives available on the front page.

hey lizard, what a friggin trip at your local blog. i went over there and gave them a lil annie speak re paul. not feeling like doing a copy paste but for anyone else who's interested my 'logic progression' in a very dumbed down (my usual) fashion is available there, at lizards #30.

juan, love the video.

Posted by: annie | Dec 29 2011 6:39 utc | 39

@Don Bacon:

Perhaps my point was not clear enough.

If the government you elect does evil, no matter how it was elected, then the method of election doesn't matter.

(I am pretty sure you weren't complaining that there isn't an evil enough politician to represent your views. ... pretty sure.)

The fact is that George Carlin got it exactly right. They dont give a fuck about you, including your views.

Your views will only get representation when they're afraid of not taking account of your views.

As of today, they aint.

Posted by: ScuzzaMan | Dec 29 2011 8:51 utc | 40

Arthurdecco,POA, don't despair, followed the both of you at SC (I only occasionally posted there)and am in sync with most of what you post. The MOA (post whiskey bar) is mostly a foreign policy oriented place with voices in many countries, often the countries directly involved, aimed at thwarting/exposing the world wide imperialist rampage.

Posted by: anna missed | Dec 29 2011 9:38 utc | 41

thanks Annie, I was wondering if that was you. yeah, the montana blogosphere is an interesting place. I've been writing for that blog for over a year now, and my disgust over Obama's continuation of Bush's third term is definitely not appreciated by Dem loyalists. our senate race between Jon Tester (D, sorta) and Denny Rehberg (R) is going to be super nasty, mostly because Jon won with around 3,000 votes in 2006, and he has since worked very hard to distance himself from environmentalists and other segments of his base, by pushing a forest bill that his republican predecessor has been working on, helping to kill the Dream Act, and militarizing our northern border from that very dangerous threat posed to us from Canada.

there is a good chance people like me will get blamed if Jon loses his race, because we point this kind of stuff out. oh yeah, we also have Max Baucus as our other senator--you know, the guy who was a driving force in selling out Americans in the health care debate. I'm hoping that piece of shit goes down in 2016--that is, if WWIII isn't in full swing by then, and dissident poets like me aren't deep-holed in some internment camp. good times.

Posted by: lizard | Dec 29 2011 12:55 utc | 42

Just saying his domestic policies are nutty,is not enough,how about some detailed critiques.
As our domestic problems are terrible from actual nutty ideas like destroying manufacturing,turning US into service industry ununionized slaves,endless war,energy scams,the Fed thieves,open borders,healthcare fraud,EPA fraud,FCC fraud,actual racism by our 2 party duopoly of ghetto enhancement and prison time and just about every realm of domesticity at its nadir,a more detailed critique is necessary,and it might be revelatory as the solution.

Posted by: dahoit | Dec 29 2011 13:47 utc | 43

@arthurdecco #32:

People read what you're posting. They don't always respond, especially if they don't disagree with any particular point you've raised. Hell, I am barely responded to directly myself.

Raise your points and don't expect an echo chamber. Folk here aren't big on attaboys.

Posted by: Monolycus | Dec 29 2011 15:04 utc | 44


I, too, am catching quite a bit of heat from some of my leftist bloggy friends for expressing some support for Ron Paul. For instance, one of them recently mentioned to me that Brad DeLong described Ron Paul as a Jew-hater. I fired back by says that Prof. DeLong might be too narrow-minded to understand that civil libertarians and antiwar activists like Ron Paul aren't Jew-haters. They simply oppose modern-day Zionism, both the Christian and Jewish versions of it, and everything it stand for, including its bigotry towards Islam as well as its goal to use American blood and treasure to keep Israel as the sole superpower in the Middle East.

Then I went on say that if Prof. DeLong is broadminded enough to know that Zionism is simply a small yet very powerful subset of the Judeo-Christian faith, then he himself is probably a Zionist. And given that much of his economics is based on neoliberal principles, as is the case for most of the economists who've held key positions in either the Clinton or Obama Administration, and given that there's hardly any daylight between neoliberals and neoconservatives, I strongly suspect that deep down Brad Delong is some sort of Zionist.

I finally said to him that if he hasn't figured it out by now, what neoliberal economists like Brad DeLong and Larry Summers share in common with corporatist presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and pro-Zionist lawmakers like Lindsey Graham and John McCain is that they are ALL pro-military imperialists to the bone. This is why I have very little doubt that Brad DeLong is just as much of a corporatist and a Zionist as he is a neoliberal. He's just better at rising above most other DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) when it comes to fooling progressives, particularly ivory-tower progressives, into believing that he is a progressive himself. The same thing can be said about many other corporate and pro-Zionist Democrats, chief among them, of course, is Barack Obama.

I think the problem with many people who are self-described progressives, including many of the ones I frequently blog with, is that they can't seem to grasp the concept of neoliberalism and how it ties in with corporatism and Zionism and ultimately with militarism and imperialism. Plus it doesn't help that they refuse to the believe the dichotomy that currently exists between Democrats and Republicans is totally and utterly false.

I must admit that because I have been called nutty by so many of my friends who describe themselves as being progressive, especially the ones on the blogosphere, for saying some positive things about Ron Paul, I was beginning to question my sanity. But now that a very wise and insightful thinker like Bernhard, who also happens to be the love of my blogging life, see Ron Paul as someone who is making bold and meaningful efforts to bring antiwar and pro-civil libertarian arguments into the presidential debate, I have little doubt that I'm the least bit insane!

Posted by: Cynthia | Dec 29 2011 15:14 utc | 45

arthur, if you would like some feedback to your little rant that voting is worthless and we're all idiots for discussing what to do with our vote, well, here it is: if voting was totally worthless, which at the national level it sometimes appears to be, then why are there efforts to attack voting rights?

I participate in local elections, where they still very much matter. the 2010 tea party take over had a direct affect on my state's politics. if we didn't have a democrat as governor, the asshat teaparty folks would have turned away nearly 100 million dollars in federal funding for critical services for the elderly and poor, like meals on wheels. I work in social services, so I see every day the struggles people at the bottom of the social ladder are experiencing.

Posted by: lizard | Dec 29 2011 15:21 utc | 46


no, you're not crazy, you are just experiencing the flak from those poor progressives who are driving themselves nutty trying to deal with the cognitive dissonance of Obama the nobel peace prize winning rhetorician and Obama the blood on his hands imperialist puppet blowing up women and children and US citizens in the ever expanding war on terror. pity them, Cynthia, it's can't be easy defending the O-man.

Posted by: lizard | Dec 29 2011 15:33 utc | 47

Let me regurgitate the obvious to everyone here: corporate money is what put Obama into power. So there is no way in hell that Obama will use any of his unchecked powers that he has given himself to help overturn a very pro-corporate Supreme Court decision like Citizens United.

It hurts me to my very core to say this, but any president that gives himself even more power to further concentrate police-state powers into the hands of the select few, as Obama has done with regards to the indefinite detention bill, has no intentions whatsoever of taking Citizens United and weaken it in terms of its ability to allow American corporations to wield excessive power over ordinary Americans. He is no different from any other politician who's thoroughly beholden to corporate America, in that he will always choose to support "They, the Corporations" over "We, the People."

Posted by: Cynthia | Dec 29 2011 16:43 utc | 48

My god, if "progressives" support Obama then why would we want to be associated with "progressivism"?

One would hope that true conservatives would have realized the same in regard to Bush.

If it walks like a duck...

Ideology can only carry so much water. No, I won't support genocide for "liberal" ends. No, I won't support nuclear power to combat climate change. No, I won't vote for the war party so as to preserve the Department of Energy. No, I wouldn't even vote for the candidate which makes the right promises on abortion rights but which abandons the rest of the Bill of Rights. People need to keep some perspective.

Posted by: Aletho News | Dec 29 2011 17:05 utc | 49

@Cynthia -- Exactly correct on neoliberalism. Obama, the DLC and most Dems don't quarrel with the strategies, only the means. "We're smarter and we do it better." But they still do it.

On Obama,
Black Agenda Report, May 7, 2008
Running to the Right: Barack Obama and the DLC Strategy

DLC endorsement is the gold standard of political reliability for Wall Street, Big Energy, Big Pharma, insurance, the airlines and more. Though candidates normally undergo extensive questioning and interviews before DLC endorsement, Obama insisted the blessing of these corporate special interests had been bestowed on him without these formalities and without his advance knowledge, and formally disassociated himself from the DLC. But like Hillary Clinton, and every front running Democrat since Michale Dukakis in 1988, Barack Obama's campaign has adopted the classic right wing DLC strategy.
When he does speak, it won't be good news. Republicans are sure to escalate their demands, insisting that Barack Obama denounce a list of black and progressive organizations, activities, beliefs and individuals to retain his share of their base. And as long as Obama is wedded to the DLC strategy, he will eagerly comply.

If there was an actual mass-based progressive movement in the US, operating on the ground and independent of political parties and campaigns, it might have a prayer of holding Barack Obama accountable. But there isn't.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Dec 29 2011 17:08 utc | 50

@Aletho News - I do not mind when you steal snippets from my posts but I do mind when you just copy whole pieces from my site. That is simply unfair. I put some effort into those and want the traffic from them on my side.

Posted by: b | Dec 29 2011 18:48 utc | 51

b, do you consider blockquotes (snippets) stealing?

i completely agree with you about being ripped off for this whole post. it's unethical and everyone knows you are not supposed to do that.

Posted by: annie | Dec 29 2011 19:20 utc | 52

there is a good chance people like me will get blamed if Jon loses his race

lizard, let them blame away. if the dems loose the left it is their own damn fault.

Posted by: annie | Dec 29 2011 19:22 utc | 53

@annie - do you consider blockquotes (snippets) stealing?

Of course not. I use them myself and always link the source. But Aletho News copies whole pieces and without any obvious link back to the source. That is totally uncreative juvenile behavior. I do not want to be associated with that.

Posted by: b | Dec 29 2011 20:05 utc | 54

thanks, that's what i figured. i made a point of linking to you and leaving lots out when i wrote those posts for MW. just covering my bases.

Posted by: annie | Dec 29 2011 20:25 utc | 55

Arthur, I love your post, and in fact, it's pretty much what I have asserted in this thread before you posted. Did you read my two posts upstream? Do you agree?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Dec 29 2011 21:06 utc | 56


Please do provide a url for any post of yours that has been cross posted without attribution to Moon of Alabama. I am unaware that such a thing exists.

Posted by: Aletho News | Dec 29 2011 21:32 utc | 57

Morocco Bama, was that before or after you ridiculed folks for wishing each other a bit of holiday cheer?

Posted by: lizard | Dec 30 2011 0:56 utc | 58

@58, I didn't ridicule anyone on that thread. I meant what I said. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I hold myself to the same standard. Christmas in the United States, and The West, in general, is a farcical spectacle.....a disgusting ritual despite all the vain attempts to rationalize it as something other than what it is.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Dec 30 2011 2:15 utc | 59

@59 I am sure your essence is pure, unsullied. stand firm, never falter, stay true.

Posted by: lizard | Dec 30 2011 2:43 utc | 60

"Folk here aren't big on attaboys." Posted by: Monolycus

I'm not looking for "attaboys", Monolycus. I'm looking for creative collaborators - people capable of altering our Future Preordained Hell On Earth. I require their creative input and measured criticisms. We all do - all creative sane people require outside influence, delivered by balanced thinkers, to develop...

So thanks to those who acknowledged the legitimacy of my rant. And of course I have to say something about the fact that neither Don Bacon nor John H addressed my criticisms of their shallow contributions to our shared was as if I never uttered a word about their contributions...

...telling that...

Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 30 2011 4:55 utc | 61

Ron Paul speaking out against SOPA and internet censorship.

Connecting the dots...

Iowa GOP moves vote count to secret location, making sure that anyone but Ron Paul will be declared winner.

System 99 People 0

annie @ 39, yeah, one of the best videos illustrating what western military invasions and occupations really boil down to. If the shoe would be on the other foot most of those dipshits who are branding Iraqi and Afghani resistance fighters as terrorist would be fighting any troops invading the US just as ferociously. Actually, thinking about it, most of them would be either too fat or too cowardly to muster the courage, or both.

Posted by: Juan Moment | Dec 30 2011 5:10 utc | 62

"So, yeah, I will probably vote. Just because they'd rather I didn't, because its just one more vote they have to fix, manipulate, or erase. Fuck 'em." Posted by: PissedOffAmerican

Think about that a little longer, POA...

What if NO ONE voted except for the usual suspects who only vote for the candidate who best supports the interests of Likud-Israel... So 3 Million votes for President in a country of 350 Million people?!?!?!?!

That would blow the lid off things pretty quick, doanchathink? Who could hide that fact for long?!?!

Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 30 2011 5:20 utc | 63

"silence is a reaction" posted by annie

annie, can I use this hook/thought of yours in a song I'm writing?

Seriously. It's brilliant and it fits in the groove like it was made for it.

I'll need your legal details eventually...if you want to get paid for it, that is. LMAO! tho we can figure that stuff out later.

...So - can I use it? (I'm grinning like a 5 year old who has been given an ice cream cone for no reason...)

Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 30 2011 6:04 utc | 64

@lizard #47 -

cognitive dissonance

yes, that's the word

most people can't live in a state of cognitive dissonance, that's why at the end they choose to "believe" the current dominant narratives and take seriously our politicians; the alternative (that is: question everything) is painful

besides, they would have to admit they've believed in fables till now

Posted by: claudio | Dec 30 2011 7:52 utc | 65

@64, Simon and Garfunkel beat you to it. But you can always create a new twist.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Dec 30 2011 13:31 utc | 66

Do you really think that someone who holds some of the views Ron Paul holds would actually be allowed to determine the destinies of some of the most powerful people the planet has ever witnessed? Seriously? Come on, this is insane. Morocco Bama wrote.

there’s that, M B, there’s that. The elections are tampered with, as we all know. (see also arthur at 26 for a full blown version..)

However electoral politics in the US is not dead yet, if only because many, the PTB, the parties, the media, the lobbies, the corporations, financial and other, as well as the a large part of the public, participate keenly in this corrupt process. The whole system has to go - and checking out isn’t really a good response. My optimistic hope is that at some point outrage will grow, and that this non-representative democratic jamboree is junked, and supporting a candidate like Ron Paul (as a genuine candidate, while noting he seems to be the only one) is perhaps a worthwhile step, leading ppl to notice that what they support is dismissed out of hand.. Sort of goody two shoes, I know, but the ways to destroy the present system are *not many* .. OWS will not manage it. So, what are the alternatives?

Btw, both registered Dems and Reps have been leaving their parties in droves, to become independents.

I’ve stated often that O-bomber would be a one term president. I now have to withdraw that prediction. Copeland said If there is truly a political poisoned chalice it is Barack Obama and *one* of my thoughts was that US voters would recognize this. Actually he is worse than Cope said, but words fail me.

Posted by: Noirette | Dec 30 2011 13:48 utc | 67

The whole system has to go - and checking out isn’t really a good response.

I agree....and that's why I wouldn't label my stance as "checking out." Yes, my rhetoric implies, more explicitly than implicitly, that the whole system is a charade...a joke even, but that's not to discount its malevolence. If it's a joke, it's a cruel and dangerous joke with incredibly destructive ramifications for all of Humanity. So, my stance is not to marginalize it, as much as it is to give it no reverence and to not participate in it to the extent that that is possible because to do so lends it more legitimacy and thus more nourishment for the Beast that it is.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Dec 30 2011 14:44 utc | 68

so, MoBam, what state do you live in? what city? are you raising kids? and if so, have you successfully isolated them from "the system"? do you think local governance is a charade? can you afford organic food? do you know anyone who survives only with their social security? how much money did your computer cost? what do you do to make money?

Posted by: lizard | Dec 30 2011 14:51 utc | 69

to not participate in it to the extent that that is possible

@69, your engagement is not sincere, but rather duplicitous, and it's one of the reasons I made my comment on the Merry Christmas thread. I don't accept false notions of good will and cheer from people with big shiny smiles and a thousand depleted uranium daggers hidden behind their back, metaphorically speaking.

You ignored a very important part of my post....the line in italics above. What part of it do you not understand? I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I know you're a bright enough fella, and I know you read it, but you decided to overlook it because it wasn't good material for the Strawman you erected.

This System is compulsory for those who occupy its lower rungs within the Hierarchy, so there is the matter of voluntary versus involuntary and that is where the "to the extent that that is possible" comes into play. However, even if you must comply with the System involuntarily, to the minimum that it's possible, it's imperative that we all cognitively validate and accept the nature of that mechanism rather than delusionally believing that working within the System will somehow rid us of the System. It's a spectrum of compliance and those that voluntarily maintain the legitimacy of the System, whilst criticizing it, do a disservice to the prospects of true and meaningful change. Obviously, those who Cheerlead the System are deserved of a special metaphorical hell and brainwashing is no excuse.

With that said, I offer you a bit of belated Christmas cheer and good will. Consider world events when this show was created and aired in 1972. As innocent Vietnamese peasants were being burned alive with Agent Orange (, Lawrence Welk and Company were perpetuating the charade.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Dec 30 2011 15:26 utc | 70

it's easy to write on a blog with your computer that the whole system has to go, MoBam. it's quite another to deal with the real world consequences of collapse.

Posted by: lizard | Dec 30 2011 16:03 utc | 71

arthurdecco #64, i believe it has been copyrighted already. i stole it from the devil. ;)

#70 your engagement is not sincere, but rather duplicitous

without too much review (life is short) it is my recollection there was a rant, not much response, a request for response, a statement made response is required for creativity or something, responses were forthcoming, and now there is a lecture wrt the inadequacy of the response.

sheesh! pass the popcorn

Posted by: annie | Dec 30 2011 16:56 utc | 72

I am reminded of the Howard Dean threads from way back, I think still at Whiskey Bar.

A lot of thoughtful comments which inevitably rubbed someone a little wrong and all of a sudden instead of

creative input and measured criticisms
discussed by
creative sane people [who] require outside influence, delivered by balanced thinkers
we are all of a sudden beginning to experience Horizontal Hostility!.

Come on folks, there have been lots of good thoughtful comments on this thread that have, at the very least, been informing my preordained thoughts. Isn’t that what makes this a very special blog for most of us?

As a long time life long member of the Libertarian Party (though now veering substantially from “libertarian” thought), I have thought Ron about the only potentially viable candidate to get my vote in a national election. I’ve vacillated over the years and not voted (“it would only encourage them”) and voted; for ObombEm, (please forgive, I wasn’t taken in by his squeaky clean populist image but by the thought of the alternative).

Don’t quite know what I’ll do next Nov. but discussions like these will help me make my best attempt at prolonging a chance for our species survival, in the interests of the next few generations and not for this old has been. So please folks, lets continue to keep things civil and informative here (which it still basically is and not despoil the opportunities offered here for further insights in this, I believe, our common quest.

Posted by: juannie | Dec 30 2011 17:45 utc | 73

working at a homeless shelter for the last three years has shown me just how broken "the system" is. veterans, mentally ill, alcoholics, all crammed into an inadequate old house that's falling apart around us.

for the entire time I've been there, we've been trying to rebuild/relocate the shelter. what it has taken to finally get us to the point of securing land has been collaboration, with the downtown association, the business improvement district, law enforcement, other social service providers, city council members, the mayor, and community members.

doing the work I do also means I'm not always around the safest people. I've had to take an order of protection out because a mentally ill women has been sending me deranged letters for a year, and started talking about my wife and kids. I rely on the courts and law enforcement to serve and enforce that order.

I'm not ready to stock up on firearms and prepare for Mad Max quite yet. I'm going to work in my community, to improve what little I can, and I'm going to get to know the people who are closer to the levers of the system than I am, because when the shit goes down, I do want to be ready.

Posted by: lizard | Dec 30 2011 18:18 utc | 74

I probably won't be able to make a good argument but I would like to say that simply being negative about everything is not helpful. we have what we have because it works and most people find it acceptable. simply saying that it stinks without offering any alternative seems to be a way of killing conversation.

not sure about others who come here but I have learned much by listening and reading comments and my goal is to learn how it all works. the more I learn about how humans interact the more difficult it becomes to think of a better way. at this point in my life I believe we can only take away the really awful stuff that happens and to do that is already a huge achievement. most people fear change and change for the sake of change rarely works.

the biggest problem people who genuinely wish to make the world a better place encounter are the sociopaths who are quite willing and capable to corrupt or subvert those efforts for their own financial gain or to strengthen their position which inevitably leads to financial gain. you will be had every time simply because a non-sociopath cannot imagine the evil and ruthless things those people can and will do without a bit of remorse or shame.

add to that massive amounts of apathy that comes from having a full stomach and a big teevee and you can imagine just how hard it is to be a prophet in this century in North America.

no, the others have it right. talk to your friends and give them another side of the story to examine, point out the framing of discussions and get them to question why they are being told the things they are. I find that many people are fascinated by other viewpoints so long as you don't try to convert them or make them uncomfortable. You don't have to be overbearing. if what you say fits with reality it will catch on...maybe only a little bit but that might make a difference.

Posted by: dan of steele | Dec 30 2011 21:36 utc | 75

So I can use it, annie? lol (re: 64, 72)

Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 31 2011 4:05 utc | 76


Posted by: Morocco Bama #66

Thanks so much for that link, Morocco Bama! What a beautiful interpretation of a perfect song!

Unfortunately, you're off base on where I'm going with annie's delectable and guttural phrase, 'silence is a reaction'.

Say the phrase yourself. Out loud. Does it remotely resemble any of the phraseology in 'The Sounds of Silence'?

I'm working on something a little more hard-edged than Simon and Garfunkle's 'Sound of Silence'.

You only have to read my prose to figure that out. lol

Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 31 2011 4:23 utc | 77

"@64, Simon and Garfunkel beat you to it. But you can always create a new twist. Posted by: Morocco Bama"

Thanks so much for your link, Morocco Bama! This singer is capital 'T' talented and the song of course is perfect ART.

You can be assured that I am creating 'a new twist'. Just read out loud annie's words: 'silence is a reaction'...

Do her words even begin to scan like anything written by Paul Simon?

Uh uh. Don't think so.

I'm working on something more brutal than these admirable 60's sentiments even if what I'm doing is still melodic.

annie's words work for me in the musical language of 2012. And that's the year I'm living in. I lived thru 1968. I'm past that.

Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 31 2011 4:52 utc | 78

...Now how the hell did that double post happen?!? lol

Posted by: arthurdecco | Dec 31 2011 5:05 utc | 79

Yeah, I lived through 1968 as well, Arthur, but since I liken us to trees, it's part of me now, and you, in one of the inner rings. Yes, we're in the process of creating a new outer ring, but that new outer ring creation will be influenced in some way by the totality of experiences that have led to the creation of all our rings.

And to that point, yes, that's one reason it appears impossible to create a new System....because the old System has scattered an eternity of seeds ubiquitously across our psyches so that when the old System collapses, and it will, in its ashes, like a Phoenix, it sprouts again from the seeds it strategically distributed. Getting past this eternally perpetuating mechanism will be a significant milestone in social evolution. It seems impossible at this moment, but I believe that's just the seeds of the old System talking.

Considering what I just said, and reviewing some of the more recent comments, for any one with an OPEN mind, who's really the apathetic and cynical ones?

On the road today, as I do on occasion, I listened to the latest filth the so-called "conservatives" were dishing out, so I tuned into Rush Limbaugh, although it wasn't Rush yesterday, but instead Walter E. Williams and his guest, Thomas Sowell. There is some truth in some of what they say, but it's mixed with half-truths and out right lies with the intention of misdirecting people to the wrong conclusions and pointing people toward their wealth producing ideology.

Sowell said that "some people are in the business of being offended." It's a profound statement, and a poignant one. That's how I see it, as well, but I apply it equally, objectively and judiciously, because just as many on the fabricated "right" are in the business of being offended, there's an equal number on the fabricated "left" who are in the business of being offended. Apparently, some here were offended by some of my recent comments because they personalized my statements aimed at no individual in particular, and that is emblematic of "being in the business of being offended." If you're in the business of being offended, then the charge of "killing conversation" should be leveled against you, not at someone who says something you don't like, or with whom you don't agree.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Dec 31 2011 14:08 utc | 80

what a wonderfully vague and smarmy comment, MoBam. you must be one of the few enlightened ones tasked with bringing illumination to the huddled masses. good luck with that.

if you lived through 1968, you must be of the baby boom generation. as your generation ages into retirement and irrelevance, my generation will have to figure out how to adapt to the slow motion collapse your generation was incapable of addressing.

Posted by: lizard | Dec 31 2011 14:45 utc | 81

Hey, Lizard. Speaking for myself, I was on the frontlines against these criminal sacks of shit while you were languishing in your daddy's ball sack. So have a little respect for your elders, will ya?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Dec 31 2011 15:12 utc | 82

write in candidate: Mic Check

Posted by: Susan | Dec 31 2011 15:28 utc | 83

respecting elders, that sounds like old system thinking to me, and I'm being told by an elder that the whole thing has got to go.

Posted by: lizard | Dec 31 2011 15:30 utc | 84


I get you... or I think I do. I liked this post of yours, it speaks to me. What a lot of people don't want to do is to think for themselves; they truly don't know how. Most of their thinking is based on what they feel others want them to think.

I'm not sure how people can ever come together on when we're talking about populations the size of nations... small community I understand. Today I was arguing politics and business with a granola-looking stock broker at the local espresso/breakfast place. One would be careful to judge the people in there by how they look. As I was saying, I can communicate fine with people I can meet face to face regardless of race, age or any other factor – such is true with most of us I imagine.

The problem with governing large populations effectively is what we learned in grade school playing 'telephone' on rainy days; people hear what they want and repeat what they think they heard. This is the problem inherent in humans and language.

As far as RP is concerned; I figure he's just another maggot politician who has managed to keep playing the game by talking to the fringe. One of the reasons I don't trust him is – can anyone really say what his policies would be? He seems almost as good a chameleon changing his beliefs to fit the times as the rest of the assholes in Congress. He just has talking points that resonate with a lot of people, like a certain senator from Illinois who talked a fine talk but doesn't even begin to walk the walk. Not that I was surprised.

I mumble and ramble... probably not the finest post to end the year on. Oh well.

Peace and may the invisible bless you.

Posted by: DaveS | Dec 31 2011 16:31 utc | 85


I went over to take a look at your local blog a couple of days ago, clicked down on one of the posts and read your poem Transient. Man what a grand poem it is. I am in awe that you are writing so expertly, with such grace. You should not delay in mailing that one out to one, or several, of the poetry journals.

I'd like to post at my blog with link to you and proper attribution, with your permission.

Posted by: Copeland | Dec 31 2011 16:50 utc | 86

that's very kind of you to say, Copeland. I have no problem with you reposting it.

I wish I could write more at that blog about the work I do at the shelter, but our relocation effort has been brutal, with awful dehumanizing attacks on the people we serve from all sides, and amplified by our local newspaper. my poem for Joe is a small counterweight to the crush of hopelessness I sometimes feel.

because the fight continues.

Posted by: lizard | Dec 31 2011 17:13 utc | 87

Also linked inn the open thread but fits better here. Greenwald: Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies

Posted by: b | Dec 31 2011 17:41 utc | 88

I like the tree analogy, MoBa. Lots. you write lyrics? heh heh

& hey, lizard; you're too easily offended and intimidated by the adults in the room...

...just sayin'.

Posted by: arthurdecco | Jan 2 2012 1:04 utc | 89

@89 do you vote in local elections, or do you think all civic engagement is a waste of time? and if you think all voting is a waste of time, what are your adult suggestions we do about our broken political system?

Posted by: lizard | Jan 2 2012 3:35 utc | 90

".....or do you think all civic engagement is a waste of time...."

Well, Lizard, I can assure you that, sometimes, civility is a waste of time. Particularly when some young obnoxious punk gets the discussion off on the wrong footing.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 2 2012 15:20 utc | 91

" generation will have to figure out how to adapt to the slow motion collapse your generation was incapable of addressing"

See now, I have no doubt thats what many of you WILL do. Adapt. Rather than fight it, rather than seeking to change it, you will simply roll with the punches, blame the former generation, and masturbate yourself with whatever new little electronic gadget jumps out of China.

Something you aren't considering, Lizard. These upcoming pieces of shit like Bachman, Perry, Santorum, Obama, etc, aren't of my generation. They're youngsters. And they're slimier than some of the political dinosaurs ever dreamed of being. You got your work cut out for you. Might think about that next time one of these career criminals looks you in the eye and tells you that little black box is countin' your vote.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 2 2012 15:32 utc | 92

@90 I vote in any election I'm legally permitted to vote in, lizard. I financially support the political party that best promotes my interests and I even volunteer to drive people to polling booths who can't get there on their own. I volunteer to put up signs, etc., etc., get the idea...

I'm a firm believer in civic engagement and no, I don't believe it's a waste of time. I don't believe I've ever said that.

What I have said was that your American political system is so corrupt that to contribute your time and efforts to electing any of the the disgraceful pre-approved by AIPAC national politicians running for office is a waste of your time. Instead you should be doing everything in your power to pull the system down around their empty heads! Your political system, as presently constituted, is a stinking,filthy, corrupt glob of Evil Putrescence that deserves to be utterly destroyed. Contributing to it's legitimacy by taking part in it only encourages worse behaviour from the psychopaths largely in charge of your country.

You may have figured out by now that I'm not an American. In fact I'm Canadian and I admit we have our own political crosses to bear - it's just that we're not remotely as powerless politically as you are as citizens but ONLY because our vote counting machinery is STILL largely uncorrupted, though not for a lack of trying by our very own filthy-slime-bag-bought-and-paid-for-by-corporate-interests-politicians to game the system.

For you its Revolution Time. For us its still Diligence Time. We still have time enough to shore up what is good about our system as long as we keep paying attention. You Americans, on the other hand, have been the victims of a silent coup that took place in your country over the last ten years with the full cooperation of your infested-with-traitors-institutions and media.

For you its War Against The Machine Time if you ever hope to see your country's Constitution again as more than a curious piece of paper displayed under glass.

I wish I had the power to offer you up some practical meat and potato solutions to your dilemma but I don't...beyond my advice for you all to collectively turn your backs on your next mockery of democracy you call national elections where the only people allowed to win are traitors to America, working feverishly for bags of money and minor influence to enact the demands of a sociopathic collection of foreigners and their co-conspirators masquerading as Americans but self-identified as "Zionists" which, to my way of thinking, is a contradiction in terms.

If 347,000,000 Americans turned their back on your political charade and just walked away or voluntarily voted in a parallel if non-legal election controlled by the citizens themselves it might be enough to bring your treasonous leadership's disgusting shit house crashing down into irrelevance.

Then you might be able to scoop the traitors up and stuff one or two of those FEMA camps chock full with them. Betcha that would wake up the small fry who enable them pretty quick.

Hey! Look Ma! The Emperor has NO CLOTHES!

Posted by: arthurdecco | Jan 2 2012 16:35 utc | 93

If 347,000,000 Americans turned their back on your political charade and just walked away

but you know that is not possible. it can never be. and since that is very much impossible for so many reasons it is of little use as a solution. some are giving lizard a hard time but he at least seems to be doing something about the current state of affairs in his town. and that is the most important thing to do in my opinion. all politics are local. get decent people elected in your town and they will then have a voice in getting other decent people elected to higher government.

I do agree that it makes little difference in the presidential race who you vote for but by not voting you make it easier for the ptb to install their own pet. it is already costing a billion dollars to elect a president...why make it easier and cheaper for them?

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 2 2012 19:46 utc | 94

I'm a firm believer in civic engagement and no, I don't believe it's a waste of time. I don't believe I've ever said that.

gee arthur, I can't imagine why I would think you implied that voting, at least for Americans, is a waste of time. hmmm, maybe it was this snippet from your little tirade.

It's all an evil fraud designed by tricky dicksters, financed by vengeful sociopaths who hate you and believed in only by ignorant children and idiots.

you seem sharp enough, Arthur, to figure out that implying everyone in America who still believes in voting is either an ignorant child, or an idiot, is, first off, bullshit, and second, not very productive.

now, why don't you go do something productive, like working to stop the tar sands from further destroying the planet, and I'll do something with my vote, like helping to teach our junior senator that there's a political price to pay for selling out his constituents by voting for the NDAA.

@91&92: Well, Lizard, I can assure you that, sometimes, civility is a waste of time. Particularly when some young obnoxious punk gets the discussion off on the wrong footing.

you're right, I should have handled being lectured to about the idiocy of voting by the "adults" in a more mature manner. luckily I have you, sir, as a shining example of adult maturity. enjoy your social security.

@94: thanks Dan.

Posted by: lizard | Jan 2 2012 20:27 utc | 95

It saddens my heart.

Insults, name calling, putdowns, invective, petty egos longing for importance and recognition and all we're left with is self degeneration into Horizontal Hostility!

Thanks for being the adult among us b; but letting the children stray so far?

Anyone have anything else constructive to offer on why Ron Paul should win the primaries?

Posted by: juannie | Jan 2 2012 22:09 utc | 96

So, I still stand by my assertions made earlier up thread about the political process, but since the Ron Paul fire continues to burn, I will deposit this. It's a comment someone made on an obscure site somewhere, and it's something with which I largely agree. This is nuts. I mean, it was already insane, but to ask so-called "Progressives" to endorse Ron Paul is beyond the pale. Arthur right, show the Oligarchic scum that you are on to them and you won't play their stupid little game any longer by withholding your vote. It doesn't count, anyway, so there can be no downside to you not participating.

Watch out if enough Republicans in the South realize that Paul's philosophy is amenable to the establishment of a modern Confederacy.

I'm used to the system being what it is, but I've been having a really visceral disgust today at a political environment so utterly degenerate, so comically fixed, that the only "candidate" who ostensibly opposes imperialism and the drug war (as if he'd really manage to end either) happens also to be the one who would restore legal child labor, return to 19th century economics, rob people of their hard-earned Social Security and Medicare, and bring us back to the happy day when the stifling tyranny against minorities, gays and atheists was local and constitutional -- not federal, goddamn it! How are things so wrong and fucked, that this is supposed to be a choice?

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 2 2012 22:35 utc | 97

OK, lizard. OK.

I give up.

Get back to me when that 1 ton chip on your shoulder falls off...and in the mean time - take some reading comprehension courses, will ya - you nasty piece of work. They may help you to understand simple, concise English sentences and lessen your need to puff out your chicken hawk chest and screech out at what and who you don't understand.

Knowledge is Power.

You haven't forgotten you're a product of the American Educational System, have you, lizard?

I'd like to ask the same rhetorical question of Dan of Steel too...and I have another one I'd like an answer to, if you're both willing:

Who taught you fellows how to read, provided you with your vocabulary and definitions for the 500 or so words you know the approximate meaning of?

I ask because you should be clamouring for your money back.

Posted by: arthurdecco | Jan 2 2012 22:56 utc | 98

arthur, you clamored for a bit of attention, and now you've got some. you're welcome.

now, out of respect to those who don't want to read snipes and elbows, I'm gonna cool my jets. MoA is at its best when these kinds of exchanges are avoided. for my part, I apologize.

Posted by: lizard | Jan 2 2012 23:12 utc | 99

Ron Paul on Iran

Posted by: Juan Moment | Jan 2 2012 23:12 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.